No help needed

"Given what we heard yesterday about the president's
vision for his second term, it's pretty clear to me that he knows he
can't do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans,"
Boehner said in a speech Tuesday to The Ripon Society. "So we're
expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration
as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party.

"And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal — to just shove us into the dustbin of history."

Given that it was the Republicans' stated goal in 2010 to make Barack Obama a one-term president,
it's only fair that he and the Democrats at least try to return the
favor. But even if they don't, the GOP seems to have done a pretty good
job of destroying themselves in the eyes of the average voter all by
themselves.

The best thing President Obama could do is just leave them alone. Please proceed, Mr. Speaker.

No swearing aloud: Arizona proposes loyalty oath for students

By Mustang BobbyThe State of Arizona, that bastion of liberty and justice for all who look like Americans, is now contemplating requiring loyalty oaths from all students in high school.

Beginning in the 2013‑2014 school year, In addition to fulfilling the course of study and assessment requirements prescribed in this chapter, before a pupil is allowed to graduate from a public high school in this state, the principal or head teacher of the school shall verify in writing that the pupil has recited the following oath:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

Aside from the fact that it is comically absurd to require people to "take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion" — if you're forced to do it, you're not doing anything "freely" — it makes a mockery of the idea of individual liberty: It's a free country as long as you are forced to proclaim your loyalty to it. (By the way, they cribbed that oath from the Constitution; it's basically the same one that senators, congresspeople, and the vice president take when they assume office. Someone should sue for copyright infringement.)Read more »

In the Senate, egotism trumps democracy

By Michael J.W. StickingsBy now you've surely heard about how Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell struck a deal on the filibuster that basically means little to no change to the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate.With a solid majority, Democrats could have changed the rules so as to ensure simply majority rule and therefore to put an end to the non-constitutional super-majority requirement upon which obstructionist, party-of-no Republicans have been insisting, thereby reducing this supposedly noble body to a state of paralysis, something even the cautious, checks-and-balances Madison would abhor, but in the end they let their grotesquely egotistical sense of entitlement and self-worth get the better of them, as usual, and caved, also as usual."I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," said the pathetic Reid, who flipped and flopped away from his encouraging pronouncement last year that the filibuster was being "abused."So much for encouragement. We who thought Reid and the Dems might actually do something to put some democracy back in the Senate, taking absolute power away from lone senators who could stop whatever they wanted, were the ones who had our trust abused. Read more »

Gerry-rigging

After their vote earlier this week to re-draw the districts of the state, the Virginia legislature is on the verge of voting to change the way their Electoral College votes to favor Republicans:

Legislation that would apportion Virginia's electoral votes by the winner of each congressional district, instead of the current winner-take-all system, emerged from a Senate subcommittee today without a recommendation.[...]Critics of the legislation, this time around mostly Democrats, have labeled the bill and others like it "sore losers bills" considering the victory of President Barack Obama in the commonwealth in 2012.

Harry Reid fucks America

The Democrats completely folded on filibuster reform.I had been figuring that this would be Harry Reid's last term as a
senator. And I was fine with that. He could step aside and allow a
younger Democrat to take his seat. But now, I hope that doesn't happen. I
hope that Reid just dies. It doesn't have to be a violent or painful
death. But it wouldn't hurt.Last year Reid was screaming about how broken
the Senate was. He stated publicly that he regretted not fixing the
filibuster when he had the chance. But now he says that he isn't quite
ready to get rid of the 60 vote requirement for renaming a fucking post
office! He said,
"With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't
and shouldn't be like the House." Last time I checked, the Senate
wasn't at all like the House. It is already undemocratic. The 300,000
people in Wyoming get two senators, just like the 36 million people in
California. This is inside the Beltway bullshit, pure and simple.And it is all so frustrating! If Reid wasn't prepared to go with the
constitutional (nuclear) option, he should have negotiated different. If
he had pushed for the elimination of the filibuster (which is what I wanted!)
then McConnell might have cut a deal with him to only require the
talking filibuster. But instead, he threatened just the talking
filibuster. And McConnell effectively said this, "My final offer is
this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, because you are
such a pussy, I know I can walk all over you."Read more »

Both sides, now

By Capt. FoggNo, this isn't about Joni Mitchell and I'm not going to talk about bows and flows of angel hair, just about stunning hypocrisy. How many
ice cream castles have been built upon the idea that a fertilized human
egg cell is a human being possessed of human rights? It would be
hypocritical enow that those rights are allowed by Church doctrine to
foetuses when they have been so often denied to adults by religious
authorities, but that's not what this is about. It's about, as I said,
hypocrisy; about arguing both sides when needed to avoid guilt, or at
least to avoid prosecution and penalty.Catholic
Health Initiatives, with assets estimated at around 15 billion dollars,
operates a chain of hospitals and as a response to a wrongful death
suit involving twin foetuses who died before birth, their attorneys
argued that in cases of wrongful death, the term “person” only applies
to individuals born alive, and not to those who die in utero, says Raw Story today.Perhaps that will be a precedent that
plagues them in future when they try to argue otherwise according to
Roman Catholic doctrine regarding abortion and birth control, but
looking at this cloudy argument from both sides now is pretty
entertaining, don't you think? And of course we remember all the adages
telling us that when they argue principle, what they mean is money.Feather canyons everywhere, indeed.(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The New York Post is the worst newspaper in the history of newspapers

Unless you're a right-wing prick, you know Rupert Murdoch's Post is nothing but a shit-stained tabloid full of offensive right-wing trash. Consider its cover yesterday:

The vicious Republican assault on Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, and the Obama Administration generally, over the Benghazi consulate attack has been nothing but a propagandistic pack of lies.But even if you think McCain et al. have a point, this anti-Hillary cover is inexcusable. The secretary of state was determinedly fending off the Republican assault and stating the facts in contrast to their lies, not exploding with rage. And why bring Bill into it? Just to suggest that Hillary is an emasculating bitch who flies off the handle?The sexism... well, it's as obvious as it gets, right?Think a man would be treated like this?

Al Gore is wealthier than Mitt Romney. Ho hum.

By Richard K. BarryAccording to Time, Al Gore has "built a net worth to some $300 million, according to the scorekeepers at Forbes. By their measure, he is now richer than the renowned supercapitalist Mitt Romney."How did he makes his money, I'm sure you are asking? Here's one way:

The late Steve Jobs installed him on Apple's board, encouraged Gore’s regular interventions around company head­quarters in Cupertino, Calif., and compensated him with stock options that Gore recently exercised for nearly $30 million.

And then there is this:

That check landed close behind Gore's estimated $100 million profit on the sale of Current TV to al-Jazeera, a deal in the waning hours of 2012 that sent Gore bashers into orbit. Gore is also a co-founder, along with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood, of Generation Investment Management, a private partnership that pursues what Gore calls sustainable capitalism. With more than $3.5 billion under management, the firm pursues Gore's belief that companies prosper over the long haul if they pay attention to values beyond the quarterly earnings report.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Republicans want to turn rape victims into criminals

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

That's right, if you're raped and get an abortion, which of course is a constitutional right, Republicans want to throw the book at you, make you the criminal. Crazy? Yes, but really not much of a stretch for Republicans.Tell me again how they're not waging war on women?

The poll tested both parties' primary fields and theoretical general-election matchups. What is clear from this early read is that Capito is well-known and, at least for now, is well-liked.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II led the field of potential candidates and appears to be the strongest general-election nominee against Capito. In a general-election test, 50 percent of respondents said they would support Capito, while 32 percent said they backed Rahall. Eighteen percent were undecided.

Obviously this is early going. Interestingly, they point out that because West Virginia is such a cheap state in which to advertise, name identification won't be a problem for anyone by election day. By the same token, negative ads and the characterization and mischaracterization of everything everyone says will be easily put before the voters. One thing that seems relatively certain is that Capito will be the GOP nominee, as she polls at 71 percent against her closest potential challenger, GOP Rep. David B. McKinley, who gets 15 percent support.

The end of history

A couple of nights ago on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell presented a rewrite where he attacked conservatives—Bill O'Reilly in particular—about the one thing that makes them conservatives. The clip is below and it is worth watching. He says that conservatives always think that however things are, that is how they should be. So when there was slavery, well, that is how it should be. How could anyone have improved on the life of America in 1860? And similarly today, it is right and fitting for fifty million Americans to go without healthcare and for most of the rest to be one illness away from medical bankruptcy.This is what I call "the end of history." It is the belief that all of history was leading up to the present. We aren't going somewhere, we havearrived. And for those in power, I guess the case can be made. But for the rest of us? I don't think we only need tinkering around the edges. In particular, I'm thinking more and more that all markets are turning into winner-take-all. These are markets where those at the top make ridiculous amounts of money, while all the rest barely get by. Think: violin players. We effectively have the same sort of thing going on with other areas that should not be winner-take-all markets. For example, high tech has become a place where big companies use government policy to stifle small companies.This is why we must not allow conservatives to claim that they are for free markets. They are for anything but. The only time they are for "free markets" is when it helps powerful installed interests. Take for example, "free trade" agreements. These are agreements to allow free trade in, say, tomatoes. But they don't allow free trade in medicine, law, teaching, or anything else that would hurt American elites but help American poor. So it is critical to see conservatism for what it is and not for what it claims to be.

Cory Booker polls a lot better than Sen. Lautenberg

By Richard K. BarryA Quinnipiac University poll finds that Newark Mayor Cory Booker is well ahead of Sen. Frank Lautenberg in a, for now, hypothetical head-to-head matchup for the Democratic Senate nomination in New Jersey in 2014. Booker leads incumbent Lautenberg by a margin of 51 to 30 percent:

New Jersey voters approve 50 - 34 percent of the job Sen. Lautenberg is doing, but say 45 - 36 percent he does not deserve to be reelected.

Only 21 percent of voters say Lautenberg's age gives him the wisdom and experience to do a good job as a U.S. Senator, while 71 percent say his age makes the work too difficult.

This no doubt puts Booker in a tough situation as he contemplates how to push Lautenberg, who would be 91 years old at the start of a next term, to the curb. For his part, the incumbent recently suggested Booker deserved a "spanking" for openly scheming for the New Jersey Senate seat. Still, Lautenberg has not signaled what he will do, while Booker has all but said he intends to run. Some people may think it's unbecoming, but we live in a democracy and anyone is allowed to take anyone else on if they are legally qualified and so choose.

Boehner's weakness is America's strength

By Frank MoraesJust for the record, John Boehner is still a very weak Speaker of the House. The House of Representatives voted to suspend the Debt Ceiling through 18 May. This in itself is a chickshit move. Boehner had decided that he didn't need to make his caucus have to vote to raise the Debt Ceiling; instead, he would just have them ignore it for a while. Why not just "ignore" it forever? And I'm sure that a lot of people in the next set of Republican primaries will ask that very question.

But what makes Boehner look weak is that yet again, he could not get legislation passed without the help of the Democrats. Only 199 Republicans voted for the bill that required at least 230. And this was with the ridiculous unconstitutional[1] "sweetener" of saying the congress doesn't get paid if it doesn't pass a budget. The truth is that it is clear that he can't control his caucus. But the bill did at least fulfill the Hastert Rule, so Boehner has to be pleased about that.

I think we should all be pleased about this vote, however. It shows a willingness on the part of the Republican leadership to work with the Democrats. If Pelosi had whipped the Democratic caucus, Boehner's bill would have likely gone down in defeat. Boehner had to be a little uneasy about bring the bill up for a vote. And more important: he must have brought it to the floor because he thought that the Democrats would work with him. This doesn't mean that it will work the other way around, but it is some movement in the right direction. Boehner is using his weakness for good rather than evil.__________

[1] The 27th Amendment
is really clear: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of
the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election
of Representatives shall have intervened."

About Jonathan Bernstein

By Frank Moraes[Jonathan Bernstein writes for various parts of The Washington Post. But his name always links to Robert Samuelson's page, and regular readers will know that we don't much care for Mr. Samuelson. But we do care for Mr. Bernstein, so we've decided to make an "About Jonathan Bernstein" page for him. Including an image! - FM]Jonathan Bernstein does not write a weekly economics column that usually runs in The Washington Post on Mondays. That would be Robert Samuelson. You can be forgiven for thinking it otherwise. Bernstein writes other stuff. But he was most likely never a columnist for Newsweek magazine from 1984 to 2011. But Robert Samuelson was. It's hard to say exactly what Bernstein was doing before he came to thePost; have you ever searched for "Jonathan Bernstein"? There are at least 26 people on Twitter named Jonathan Bernstein! [It would be totally cool if he changed his name to Jonomatopoeia Bernstein.]He began his journalism career somewhere else. It probably wasn't where Robert Samuelson started, as a reporter on The Washington Post business desk, from 1969 to 1973. In fact, it is quite likely that Bernstein wasn't even alive in 1973! Bernstein most definitely is not the author of The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath: The Past and Future of American Affluence (2008) or The Good Life and Its Discontents (1995). He grew up somewhere, perhaps even in White Plains, N.Y., like Robert Samuelson.Unfortunately, I can't find Robert Samuelson's email address, because I'm sure he could forward any email to Jonathan Bernstein. They are thought to be close; they even share the same web page.

Annals of gun nutsery

CONSTITUENT: My question is regarding the guns and is Washington at all aware of the psychotropic drugs that these children are taking? I guarantee it 100 percent that's our big problem. [...]

LANKFORD: I agree with that. I think there's a bunch of issues that, quite frankly, most liberals are afraid to talk about. [...] Where are we on all those psychiatric drugs? We've overmedicated kids. Quite frankly some of the overmedication of kids are because welfare moms want to get additional benefits and if they can put them on SSI through maintenance drugs, they can also put them on Social Security disability and get a separate check. That is wrong on every single level. Not only is it fraudulent to the government, but it also tells a kid with great potential, "don't try because you're disabled."

This genius is the fifth-ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives. And they let him out without supervision. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't bring up the welfare Cadillac and the young bucks buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. Why let perfectly good racially-tinged stereotypes go to waste?Read more »

Sen. Al Franken is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like him

By Richard K. BarryAccording to Public Policy Polling, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken (and former "funny man") looks to be in good shape for reelection in 2014. I love that term "funny man." Anyway, Al's numbers look good. PPP finds that 52% of Minnesota voters approve of him, while 41% disapprove.On top of that, his chances are improved by the fact that the potential GOP field is so pathetic.

One thing that may help Franken's reelection chances, on top of his own popularity, is the weak Republican bench in the state. The top choice of GOP voters in Minnesota to take on Franken is Michele Bachmann. 45% say they would like her to be their candidate with no one else even coming close- John Kline is at 19%, Chip Cravaack at 13%, Erik Paulsen at 11%, Laura Brod at 4%, and Rich Stanek at 2%. Bachmann fares equally strongly with voters in the party who identify as 'very conservative' (46%), 'somewhat conservative' (45%), and moderate (also 45%).

The problem with Bachmann, as they point out, is that she does the worst of anyone they tested against Franken, "trailing him 54/40, including a 50/39 deficit with independents." So, Sen. Franken might be among the less vulnerable Democratic Senators next time out. I wonder if reelection might help him find his famous sense of humour, something he has so clearly put in storage since coming to Washington.

The sweet smell of desperation

Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) hears the footfall of doom as he draws ever closer to his bid for re-election next year. Polls are showing that he'd lose to freshly-minted Democrat Charlie Crist, and now he's pandering to voters whom he offended deeply by signing a restrictive early-voting law in 2011 and then running away from it like his, um, hair was on fire. Now he says he's all in favor of expanding early voting... back to where it was.

His latest attempt to suck up to a major constituency is his proposal to give Florida teachers a raise. This comes a year after he stuck public employees with a law that forces them to make a 3 percent contribution to a pension plan that is already solvent:

Scott planned to announce his proposal Wednesday in Ocoee. No details were immediately available.

The Florida Supreme Court last week upheld a Scott-proposed law requiring the pension contribution from teachers, state and county employees and some municipal workers.

The Legislature last year approved Scott’s request to increase public school funding by $1 billion but left it to local school boards to determine how much, if any, would go to pay raises.

That was a turn-around for the Republican governor, who in the previous year persuaded lawmakers to cut school spending.

Nice try, Governor. And while no one would begrudge giving a pay raise to teachers (full disclosure: when teachers get raises, so do some administrators), is there a way you could do it without being so shamelessly ham-handed about it? It makes us feel so used.

Someone please hand Wayne LaPierre a bigger shovel

WASHINGTON — Wayne LaPierre, the executive director of the National Rifle Association, angrily accused President Obama on Tuesday of demonizing law-abiding gun owners and of wanting to put "every private personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government."

In a fiery speech at a hunting conference in Nevada, Mr. LaPierre criticized Mr. Obama's Inaugural Address on Monday when the president said Americans should not "mistake absolutism for principle."

That reference, Mr. LaPierre said, was intended as an attack on the N.R.A. and gun owners who believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution provides an absolute right to bear arms.

What gun nuts won't tell you is that the Second Amendment is the only one, the only one, that places a condition on a Constitutional right. They'll ignore the language of the first part about a "well-regulated militia" -- and if the Founders were alive to address this, I think they'd acknowledge local police forces as constituting said militiae -- but woe betide anyone who interprets the rest of the Amendment to read as anything but "all the guns we want, all the time."

But then La Pierre doubled down on the stoopit:

"I urge our president to use caution when attacking clearly defined absolutes in favor of his principles," Mr. LaPierre said. "When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffiti."

In effect, La Pierre is demanding absolutism on his relative terms. For instance, the gun that Founders referred to is a muzzle loader, a musket. At best, you might have a flintlock pistol. Why doesn't he mention that in his "principle"? After all, colonists had to defend their farms against varmints both human and animal, and they seemed to do a pretty good job of surviving. If the purpose of owning a gun is to defend yourself and your family, then it seems to me that mission accomplished there.

Filibuster reform now -- or not

We are on filibuster reform eve. Three weeks ago, Harry Reid recessed
the Senate, so when the Senate comes back into session tomorrow, it will
still technically be the first day. And so, they can reform the
filibuster with a simple majority vote. The question is whether they
will. It is looking more and more like the Democrats will do what we can
almost always depend upon them doing: folding. If there were a Nobel
Prize in being spineless and not standing for anything when it matters,
the Democratic Party would have racked up a whole lot of them over the
last three decades. But there is no such prize, so all they've racked up
is a bunch of losses.I have two positions on the filibuster: ethical and practical. From an
ethical standpoint, I'm against it. The filibuster makes an already
ridiculously undemocratic Senate even more undemocratic. This isn't
about minority rights; we have the Constitution for that. This is about
minority veto power. We should get rid of it for purely ethical reasons.But there is perhaps an even more compelling practical reason to get rid
of it. The Republicans will destroy the filibuster as soon as it is to
their advantage. The moment a Democratic minority blocks their
legislative agenda, the filibuster will be killed. Any Democrat who
thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive. The Republicans play for keeps and
when they are in power, they don't fret over the thought that at some
time in the future they might not have the filibuster to protect them.
Anyway, the Republicans are also whiners. Even with their excessive use
of the filibuster, most Senate Republicans think they have been badly
abused.Read more »

Progressive America: Reflections on Obama's Second Inaugural

By Michael J.W. StickingsI'm really not sure how and to what extent President Obama will follow through on the progressive commitments he made in his Second Inaugural yeterday, but there's no denying that his vision was clear and that his rhetoric was in the right place.Of course he has often been criticized by those of us on the left for not being enough of a man of the left, enough of a leader for progressive change, and deservedly so. Too often he has been a leader, or follower, of of the Beltway center, the compromiser willing to sell out core progressive principles for the sake of getting a deal done, too often willing to give in to an opposition that itself has no interest in working with him in good faith.And yet there is hope as he embarks now on his second term.And it is possible, just possible, that he will do for the left what Reagan did for the right, that he will indeed be, or at least try to be, the transformative figure many of us know he can be.This was a speech of substance, unlike Bush Jr.'s second, which promised a global crusade but had nothing to back it up. It was a speech about America, about what America is -- what it was meant to be, what it has become, what it can be. It was a speech that proudly articulated a liberal-progressive understanding of America, and of America's promise, in stark contrast to the conservative view that has, in large part thanks to Reagan, come to dominate, and corrupt, the American politico-historical narrative.This is America, the president said, a liberal America, a progressive America. A great deal has been accomplished in the face of steadfast, regressive opposition, and a lot remains to be done, but, yes, there is hope, hope grounded in the progressive vision of the Founders and in the accomplishments that have defined a nation.Read more »

Mali factor

Remnants of European imperialism are on display this year in Africa, as France (and eventually NATO) draws itself deeper into the morass of Mali:

SEGOU, Mali — Malian and French forces were reported in control of two important central Malian towns on Tuesday after the French Defense Ministry said they recaptured them on Monday, pushing back an advance by Islamist militants who have overrun the country’s northern half.

Jean-Yves Le Drian, the defense minister, hailed the advance on Monday as “a clear military success for the government in Bamako and for French forces intervening in support of these operations.”

The developments in Diabaly, about 275 miles north of Bamako, and Douentza, on the eastern bank of the Niger River, some 300 miles to the north-east of the Malian capital, represented a reassertion of government control in areas where a lightning strike by Islamist forces last week prompted France to intervene, initially with air strikes to halt the rebel advance.

Wherefore Mali? It's an interesting situation: Mali offers no obvious strategic advantage to anyone, in truth. It's landlocked, and while it does offer access to both the Niger and Senegal rivers, there's not much to be done there in terms of trade or commerce. Mali's economy relies largely on agriculture and fishing and its two largest mineral exports are gold and salt.

Barack Obama's Second Inaugural Address

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Including Stonewall — the birthplace of the gay-rights movement — along with Seneca Falls and Selma in a presidential inaugural address for the first time.Do not tell me that the universe has not shifted.Here is the full speech as prepared for delivery.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Martin Luther King, Jr.

For me, growing up as a white kid in a middle-class suburb in the Midwest in the 1960′s, Dr. King's legacy would seem to have a minimum impact; after all, what he was fighting for didn’t affect me directly in any way. But my parents always taught me that anyone oppressed in our society was wrong, and that in some way it did affect me. This became much more apparent as I grew up and saw how the nation treated its black citizens; those grainy images on TV and in the paper of water-hoses turned on the Freedom Marchers in Alabama showed me how much hatred could be turned on people who were simply asking for their due in a country that promised it to them. And when I came out as a gay man, I became much more aware of it when I applied the same standards to society in their treatment of gays and lesbians.Perhaps the greatest impression that Dr. King had on me was his unswerving dedication to non-violence in his pursuit of civil rights. He withstood taunts, provocations, and rank invasions of his privacy and his life at the hands of racists, hate-mongers, and the federal government, yet he never raised a hand in anger against anyone. He deplored the idea of an eye for an eye, and he knew that responding in kind would only set back the cause. I was also impressed that his spirituality and faith were his armor and his shield, not his weapon, and he never tried to force his religion on anyone else. The supreme irony was that he died at the hands of violence, much like his role model, Mahatma Gandhi.Read more »

Baby on Board

If all that I read were the sporting goods catalogs that arrive in
the mail I would still know something was up. There are suddenly pages
of drum magazines for sale to fit everything from non-military versions
of long guns to shotguns to semiautomatic pistols. Drum magazines,
you'll remember seeing them on The Untouchables, great round
things holding 75 to 100 rounds mounted on the infamous "Chicago
Typewriter." One catalog even features violin and cello cases fitted
out to carry them. Fedora and Zoot Suit sold separately. What you'd
need to carry a Glock pistol with a 75 round drum mounted below the
grip, I don't know, but it's next to useless as a concealable or even
portable weapon. So why this feeding frenzy? Why just now? Is there an
invasion coming?
Gun
shops are getting very crowded again. There's a large supermarket
style one under construction in my area of coastal Florida. Prices are
rising and they can't seem to keep military-looking fake 'assault
rifles' on the shelves. Another catalog features a kit allowing one to
bolt together two Ruger 10/22 rifles - the kind of gun some country
gentleman might give his son on his 18th birthday into a two barrel,
crank operated .22 rimfire Gattling gun, complete with tripod. Only
$397 but you have to supply your own pair of rifles. Their website bears
a headline saying they're up to a week behind on shipping orders
because of massive demand.

In barber shops and hardware stores and the
Sporting Goods department at the local Wal-Mart, you hear muttering and
whispering about "that monkey" and they don't mean Wayne LaPierre. I
heard an octogenarian friend say at dinner the other night "we don't
have any freedom any more." She'd just sold her handgun from the fear
that someone would steal it and murder someone and she'd be blamed. It
isn't true of course, I don't think there's any way of tracing guns in Florida, but the fear is on the street and in the
retirement homes and the mansions and yachts and trailer parks. That monkey is after our guns.

Yes, it's gun control time again with one side arming themselves for war and the other side howling Gun Control
like ragged extras in a Frankenstein movie. The President has offered
a package of measures designed to calm the hysterical on both sides
and it's not likely to do that, or so I think. It's the "biggest legislative effort in a generation" says the Huffington Post, "a bold and potentially historic attempt to stem the increase in mass gun violence."
Lets see what it looks like after passing through the entrails of
Congress. Surely some of the proposals were pinned to the coat-tails of
a tragedy like a rider on an unrelated bill: ban the armor piercing
ammunition? Well it's really not that nor are the hollow points we use
for hunting "Cop Killer Bullets" either. How does one argue for
meaningful gun control with all that lying going on?

Really
most of these inflammatory lumps of high velocity hyperbole are just
that: attempts to emotionalize and to dupe the uninitiated and succeed
in polarizing the attempt to do something useful. To me, much of this
heated argument is corrupted by dishonest coinage, invention and the
refusal by both sides to examine the axioms their arguments rely on.
GUN CONTROL! and when I ask "what kind?" The expression I get from
either side is the same -- I must be one of them!Will banning the millions and millions and millions of
guns and accessories now in 150 million private hands do anything? By
the time anything like another loophole-ridden, designed-to-fail ban
hits the streets, the number of these things buried in back yards and
hidden behind paneling in basements will have doubled and the ranks of
camo-clad, militiamen and survivalists and preppers will have grown
further and short of a house to house search of 100 million private
residences and storage lockers and bunkers, very little will be done to
reduce their numbers. And nice people, ordinary people, educated people,
affluent people are buying guns they would have had no interest in -- because Obama's gonna ban them.The best way to create demand is to ban something.

And
if Congress does do it again, and if they suddenly disappear with a
wave of the magic wand, will someone still be able to find the hardware
to kill a score of innocents? Could you get drunk in 1929? Can you get
stoned in 2013? Of course.Have all the miscellaneous and ballyhooed safety regulations done anything? Mandatory trigger locks, microstamping
of firing pins, loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect
regulations? No. Has there been an increase in the murder by firearm
rate as is being said? No. It's lower than it was in the 1950's. The fear is oversold. Much of what is being proposed can be no more effective in protecting school children than those stupid, yellowBaby on Boardsigns people put on their cars in the '70s. It's just there for the "I hate guns" people.I'm still wondering if there has been
an increase in mass gun violence or if the handful in the last few
years is a statistical blip and the result of the unrelenting "never
forget" emotional media coverage that promotes repeat performances, but
that question will never be settled when opinions on both sides are
bolstered by selective facts, when the tenets of faith, the
proclamations of activists and politicians and lobbyists are taken as
axiomatic without question.

Whatever
happens, I doubt my shotgun will be confiscated, nor my Civil War
pistols or my Flintlock Rifle. I'm sure I'll still be able to go to the
outdoor shooting range and make holes in targets with a .22 pistol Top Shot will
still be on the History Channel and the Biathlon will still be held and
Sarah Palin can still hunt for moose. Floridians will still be able to
shoot wild hogs and Burmese pythons and out in the bayou, they'll still
be able to hunt 'gators with .22 rifles. The fear is oversold.

Whatever
happens, much legislation will be designed by people who know
dangerously little about firearms and in a state of near hysteria and
much will be sabotaged by their opponents terrified of symbolic
emasculation and little will change. No one will bother to mention or
discuss or factor in the fact that gun violence is still on the decline
and that the level of gun control in any particular state or city does
not correlate to that decline. It's a battle of preconceived notions and
it's all about irrational fear.

Increased
penalties and such won't effect anyone bent on committing suicide and
taking a few dozen innocents with him. Banning an auto-loader with a 15
round magazine when Abraham Lincoln's brass bound Henry repeater will
fire 16 rounds in 16 seconds will not make anyone all that much safer
and we'll go on banning all kinds of things to "save the children" and
setting the stage for a massive Republican victory in 2016. America
loves guns or we wouldn't own 300 million of them. America loves guns
the way it loves trucks and football and beer and that's not going to
change.

Hooray for Hagel?

I think it is time again to discuss Chuck Hagel. I've been reasonably positive about Obama's nomination of Hagel for Secretary of Defense. My main problem is just that I don't like the optics of it: Republican presidents always have Republicans at this post, but this will be Obama's second of three who are Republicans. As Michael has asked, "Is no Democrat good enough?"Unfortunately, I'm afraid that is the wrong question. The Secretary of Defense is nominated by the president you have, not the president you wish you had. This is who Obama is: a man dedicated to seeming more reasonable than anyone else. It is actually, one of his least admirable qualities. It speaks of a man who cares more about appearances than accomplishments. But I don't doubt that this is who he is. From the start I thought he was a man with very centrist beliefs. If it were 40 years ago, he would certainly be a Republican.By far, the best argument that I've heard in favor of Hagel comes from committed discontent Eric Alterman in "Hooray for Hagel." I am in agreement with him. There is nothing that makes me want Hagel confirmed as much as the neoconservative push against him. The idea that Hagel will not be a lackey of Israel and won't push for war with Iran makes him perhaps more compelling than most Democrats.Read more »

Granholm slams Santorum on gun control

Former Republican presidential candidate and likely 2016 contender Rick Santorum dismissed the need for gun safety regulations during an appearance on ABC's This Week Sunday, arguing that Americans should have access to military-style weapons and magazines, including the armor piercing bullets used by criminals to kill cops...

GRANHOLM: Why do you need armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?SANTORUM: Because we're talking about a particular type of bullet that is and can be available –GRANHOLM: Deer don't wear armor. Why do you need an armor piercing bullet?SANTORUM: Criminals could and having, having…GRANHOLM: And police officers certainly do…SANTORUM: And having the ability to defend yourself is a right in our country.

I continue to contend that assault rifles are weapons of mass destruction in that their purpose is to kill large numbers of people in small amounts of time. And obviously there is no reason to have this sort of ammunition unless you want to kill someone wearing armor. And the fact is, it's not criminals wearing armor, it's law enforcement and the military. Which is to say, the only reason to have these bullets is to kill police officers or military troops.Read more »